gilbertlaw
2006-04-23 15:46:53 UTC
Re: Review on "Holy Warriors" by Edna Fernandes
Victor makes several important points. I have not read the original book. Yet as Victor points out, I have written books, non-scientific and scientific articles, which have been published. Hence, I have dealt with many reviewers and commentators.
Firstly, a book or article is not written for the reviewers. The reviewer ("supposedly" expert) has to keep in mind the target audience of the book and not his / her PERCEPTION of what the script is /should cover. Books are written to re-emphasize the known (and this introduction should help the good reviewers) and further explore FROM the writer's perspective (NOT the reviewer's) what is the impact of the material/ article/ data that is being written about.
If the reviewer cannot understand and expand on these aspects, I question the IQ of the reviewer. Of course I'd expect the reviewer to outline the limitations of the work, if the author had not done so in the prologue or epilogue. Any writer embarks on the writing effort in order to FILL a perceived VOID in the understanding (at whatever level). The writing is NOT undertaken to exploit the readers and make money. In fact in many cases the writing is undertaken with full understanding that there is no reimbursement. Yet the ignorance out there (including the reviewers) motivates the writer(s).
The book / article is the writer's work. Reviewers can write their own book to emphasize what he / she considers important rather than being a free-loader on someone else's work. If the reviewer is PRATAP BHANU MEHTA and the writer is EDNA FERNANDES, the reviewer should APPRECIATE the perspectives of a minority-group writer. Her script reflects some ASPECTS of the minority group persecuted by the dominant religious-fanatic groups. None of this came out in the review. This in itself reflects the ignorance and arrogance of the reviewer, (not uncommon mistake), whatsoever may his ethnic background.
I hope this rather lengthy response will help and enable future reviewers on the STANDARDS of good reviewers. For more details and reviewer pitfalls, please read my three-part article on the "experience of writing 'On Thin Ice'" which appeared on Goanet.
Kind Regards, GL
---- VRANGELRIB at AOL.COM wrote:
Gilbert Lawrence wants the reviewer to be kinder to the author. But a reviewer's primary task is to be fair, not necessarily to be kind. Like Gilbert, I too am a published author, with two books of fiction to my credit, and five or six on specialized aspects of Western classical music. All I ask of my reviewers is that they be fair.
Victor makes several important points. I have not read the original book. Yet as Victor points out, I have written books, non-scientific and scientific articles, which have been published. Hence, I have dealt with many reviewers and commentators.
Firstly, a book or article is not written for the reviewers. The reviewer ("supposedly" expert) has to keep in mind the target audience of the book and not his / her PERCEPTION of what the script is /should cover. Books are written to re-emphasize the known (and this introduction should help the good reviewers) and further explore FROM the writer's perspective (NOT the reviewer's) what is the impact of the material/ article/ data that is being written about.
If the reviewer cannot understand and expand on these aspects, I question the IQ of the reviewer. Of course I'd expect the reviewer to outline the limitations of the work, if the author had not done so in the prologue or epilogue. Any writer embarks on the writing effort in order to FILL a perceived VOID in the understanding (at whatever level). The writing is NOT undertaken to exploit the readers and make money. In fact in many cases the writing is undertaken with full understanding that there is no reimbursement. Yet the ignorance out there (including the reviewers) motivates the writer(s).
The book / article is the writer's work. Reviewers can write their own book to emphasize what he / she considers important rather than being a free-loader on someone else's work. If the reviewer is PRATAP BHANU MEHTA and the writer is EDNA FERNANDES, the reviewer should APPRECIATE the perspectives of a minority-group writer. Her script reflects some ASPECTS of the minority group persecuted by the dominant religious-fanatic groups. None of this came out in the review. This in itself reflects the ignorance and arrogance of the reviewer, (not uncommon mistake), whatsoever may his ethnic background.
I hope this rather lengthy response will help and enable future reviewers on the STANDARDS of good reviewers. For more details and reviewer pitfalls, please read my three-part article on the "experience of writing 'On Thin Ice'" which appeared on Goanet.
Kind Regards, GL
---- VRANGELRIB at AOL.COM wrote:
Gilbert Lawrence wants the reviewer to be kinder to the author. But a reviewer's primary task is to be fair, not necessarily to be kind. Like Gilbert, I too am a published author, with two books of fiction to my credit, and five or six on specialized aspects of Western classical music. All I ask of my reviewers is that they be fair.
For crying out loud, couldn't the reviewer be kinder to this book and its author?
He tried to claw his way up by stomping on someone else's efforts.
REVIEW : While Fernandes' heart is in the right place, the result is a rather superficial book that perplexes more than it illuminates.
He tried to claw his way up by stomping on someone else's efforts.
REVIEW : While Fernandes' heart is in the right place, the result is a rather superficial book that perplexes more than it illuminates.